Ron Avitzur, in response to my plea, said that he supports the open source philosophy. Perhaps that explains the disagreement between us, since I certainly don't. That philosophy was formulated as a rejection of the deepest values of the free software movement in which I am an activist.
His use of the term "open source" therefore suggests a deep miscommunication. My comment pointed out that the developers had an opportunity to make the Graphing Calculator *free software*--that is, to release it in a way that respects the user's freedom to change and redistribute it. His response doesn't connect at all with this.
I do not speak for the advocates of open source, but their philosophy emphasizes the benefits of a development model which, they say, tends to produce technically better software. This emphasizes strictly practical values such as powerful and reliable software, and so does Avitzur's response. But none of that has much to do with the importance of free software. Free software is not about making software technically better. It is about respecting other people's freedom.
The Graphical Calculator is proprietary software. Users don't have the freedom to redistribute it, or study it, or change it. Its developers invite us to disregard this and think about how nice it is to use. But that's no good without freedom.
High school students who use the program may learn a good lesson about math, but they can't learn from it about programming, and it teaches a bad lesson about ethics: "Don't help your neighbor" and "`Your' copy isn't really yours". When a school uses non-free software, it teaches the students to be bad neighbors when they graduate. If Graphical Calculator were free software, it would teach good lessons in all three areas.
People who value the freedom to cooperate can avoid the Graphing Calculator just as they avoid Windows and MacOS. So if we want these capabilities, the only way we can have them (and not cede our freedom) is if we develop another program, a free program, to do the same job.
But that won't be be necessary if the Graphing Calculator itself is liberated. Could that happen? If the company has not been ambushed by the VC, it should be possible.
Would the company be able to keep operating? Economic issues are secondary when freedom is at stake, but I can understand Avitzur's interest in the question. I think he was too quick to conclude that the revenue base would disappear if the Graphing Calculator were free. It's possible that Apple would pay for the continued support of the program. (Apple already funds the support of some free software for its system.)
Would the results be good? I have doubts about the claim that the free software community has never produced a good graphical interface, since others say new users learn GNU/Linux with GNOME (the GNU desktop) faster than they learn Windows. But since I have not judged these questions myself, I will simply point out that the user interface of Graphing Calculator would not be any less good if it were released under a different license.
We will surely develop a free replacement by and by. We will do it for freedom, just as we replaced Unix, even if it takes years. But this redundant effort won't be necessary if Graphing Calculator is free.
Note from RMS:
I love the story of sneaking into Apple in order to do something useful. It's a wonderful explanation of the spirit of hacking.
However, on another level it reminds me of how the staff of UC Berkeley spent years donating their Unix work to AT&T, which kept it off limits to the public. When I read this,
There was one last pressing question: How could we get this thing included with the system software when the new machines shipped? The thought that we might fail to do this terrified me... All the sweat that Greg and I had put in, all the clandestine aid . . . would be wasted.
I thought, "It wouldn't have been wasted. They only had to release it as free software!" The developers were in a perfect position to release a nice free program--and they blew it.
As a result, their work was indeed wasted, in the sense that we will have to redo it. The free world will need to develop a free replacement for this non-free program.
When a free program isn't quite right technically, that's no big deal. You just fix it. But when a program falls short of being free, that's usually impossible to fix. A miss that can't be fixed is as good as a mile.
# Are digital rights management systems the answer? Then what was the question
You know, Jim's asked about "DRM" and then he goes on and on about cable television and how "rare" it would be for "DRM" to make sense in "mass media," about "denying content" to "digital or analog radio" -- *without a word at all* about digital broadcast television. It's not like it's at all likely Jim doesn't know the FCC just decided to mandate the "broadcast flag."
So what's your position on the broadcast flag, Jim? Would it be only some set of "licensed professionals" who get to analyze and process digital broadcast television signals with the flag set on? Or nobody gets to without the copyright holder's say-so? Don't you think you ought to address the "rare" case of the "broadcast flag?"
Sure, if you seek to limit the audience for the content, but it is rare that there is any sense in treating mass media with digital rights management techniques. DRM, for most people, means "Did you get paid?" Essentially, you manage your digital rights best if you get paid for the digits. Are we managing our digits well if we condition their delivery on locks and keys? Of course not. Cable television has essentially no DRM. Virtually every cable recipient has a video cassette or other recorder to capture the content. Are we managing our digital rights well if we fail to sell our content into this environment on account of its obvious lack of control? Of course not. If we failed to sell it to cable, we wouldn't get paid. Are we practicing good DRM if deny our content to analog or digital radio? Of course not. If we fail to deliver content, we will not be paid. So it seems quite obvious that conditioning access on locks and keys doesn't work today, and is purely a theoretical, hypothetical suggestion that has never proven value in the marketplace.
This very otherwise useful analysis nevertheless blankly ignores the most important aspect of information technology today: that the Internet is a collaborative public space for participatory engagement. It provides the capacities to use and distribute information products with full flexibility to all citizens, not just to publishers and creators who supposedly may somehow be demarcated from other people. The analysis is in fact a remarkably pure representation of the general ignorance among "content" stakeholders, of the fact that as citizens in a free society, we are all information producers -- not consumers.
The article basically proposes basing exclusive rights on the concept of controlling public distribution, rather than on copying.
It appears to be an attempt to ally with some recent initiatives that have been building a truly cognizant analysis of the relationship between technology and "exclusive rights" in a free society [represented most notably recently at http://eldred.cc/news/#brief]. But it tries to link the analysis of those concerned with information freedom, with the terms of the recently ratified WIPO Phonograms and Performances Treaty, which declares an unprecedented "moral right" of creators to control public uses of their works.
This shortsighted perspective is perfectly ordinary from the standpoint of legal analysis, but in the end it's a very good example of why it's so important to undertake a broad community-based initiative representing the public's interests in confronting the intrinsic nature of information and of technologies that facilitate its full use.
Slashdot Mirror
His use of the term "open source" therefore suggests a deep miscommunication. My comment pointed out that the developers had an opportunity to make the Graphing Calculator *free software*--that is, to release it in a way that respects the user's freedom to change and redistribute it. His response doesn't connect at all with this.
I do not speak for the advocates of open source, but their philosophy emphasizes the benefits of a development model which, they say, tends to produce technically better software. This emphasizes strictly practical values such as powerful and reliable software, and so does Avitzur's response. But none of that has much to do with the importance of free software. Free software is not about making software technically better. It is about respecting other people's freedom.
The Graphical Calculator is proprietary software. Users don't have the freedom to redistribute it, or study it, or change it. Its developers invite us to disregard this and think about how nice it is to use. But that's no good without freedom.
High school students who use the program may learn a good lesson about math, but they can't learn from it about programming, and it teaches a bad lesson about ethics: "Don't help your neighbor" and "`Your' copy isn't really yours". When a school uses non-free software, it teaches the students to be bad neighbors when they graduate. If Graphical Calculator were free software, it would teach good lessons in all three areas.
People who value the freedom to cooperate can avoid the Graphing Calculator just as they avoid Windows and MacOS. So if we want these capabilities, the only way we can have them (and not cede our freedom) is if we develop another program, a free program, to do the same job.
But that won't be be necessary if the Graphing Calculator itself is liberated. Could that happen? If the company has not been ambushed by the VC, it should be possible.
Would the company be able to keep operating? Economic issues are secondary when freedom is at stake, but I can understand Avitzur's interest in the question. I think he was too quick to conclude that the revenue base would disappear if the Graphing Calculator were free. It's possible that Apple would pay for the continued support of the program. (Apple already funds the support of some free software for its system.)
Would the results be good? I have doubts about the claim that the free software community has never produced a good graphical interface, since others say new users learn GNU/Linux with GNOME (the GNU desktop) faster than they learn Windows. But since I have not judged these questions myself, I will simply point out that the user interface of Graphing Calculator would not be any less good if it were released under a different license.
We will surely develop a free replacement by and by. We will do it for freedom, just as we replaced Unix, even if it takes years. But this redundant effort won't be necessary if Graphing Calculator is free.
I love the story of sneaking into Apple in order to do something useful. It's a wonderful explanation of the spirit of hacking.
However, on another level it reminds me of how the staff of UC Berkeley spent years donating their Unix work to AT&T, which kept it off limits to the public. When I read this, I thought, "It wouldn't have been wasted. They only had to release it as free software!" The developers were in a perfect position to release a nice free program--and they blew it.
As a result, their work was indeed wasted, in the sense that we will have to redo it. The free world will need to develop a free replacement for this non-free program.
When a free program isn't quite right technically, that's no big deal. You just fix it. But when a program falls short of being free, that's usually impossible to fix. A miss that can't be fixed is as good as a mile.
Pricing is what this paper is all about.
You do go on . .
You know, Jim's asked about "DRM" and then he goes on and on about cable television and how "rare" it would be for "DRM" to make sense in "mass media," about "denying content" to "digital or analog radio" -- *without a word at all* about digital broadcast television. It's not like it's at all likely Jim doesn't know the FCC just decided to mandate the "broadcast flag."
So what's your position on the broadcast flag, Jim? Would it be only some set of "licensed professionals" who get to analyze and process digital broadcast television signals with the flag set on? Or nobody gets to without the copyright holder's say-so? Don't you think you ought to address the "rare" case of the "broadcast flag?"
This is the single most important question that needs to be asked and answered.
This very otherwise useful analysis nevertheless blankly ignores the most important aspect of information technology today: that the Internet is a collaborative public space for participatory engagement. It provides the capacities to use and distribute information products with full flexibility to all citizens, not just to publishers and creators who supposedly may somehow be demarcated from other people. The analysis is in fact a remarkably pure representation of the general ignorance among "content" stakeholders, of the fact that as citizens in a free society, we are all information producers -- not consumers.
The article basically proposes basing exclusive rights on the concept of controlling public distribution, rather than on copying.
It appears to be an attempt to ally with some recent initiatives that have been building a truly cognizant analysis of the relationship between technology and "exclusive rights" in a free society [represented most notably recently at http://eldred.cc/news/#brief]. But it tries to link the analysis of those concerned with information freedom, with the terms of the recently ratified WIPO Phonograms and Performances Treaty, which declares an unprecedented "moral right" of creators to control public uses of their works.
This shortsighted perspective is perfectly ordinary from the standpoint of legal analysis, but in the end it's a very good example of why it's so important to undertake a broad community-based initiative representing the public's interests in confronting the intrinsic nature of information and of technologies that facilitate its full use.